Skip to main content

About your Search

20121201
20121231
STATION
SFGTV 305
SFGTV2 70
KGO (ABC) 20
CSPAN 9
WBAL (NBC) 9
CNNW 5
KRON (MyNetworkTV) 4
KTVU (FOX) 4
WBFF (FOX) 4
CSPAN2 3
KOFY 3
FBC 2
WTTG 2
CNBC 1
KNTV (NBC) 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 452
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 453 (some duplicates have been removed)
a question as you mentioned that, just a question about how it is that the t.a. coordinates with the mta. we have folks at the mta do design work. how do you coordinate between the two agencies? >> it depends on the project. for any project in our work plan, we will work with mta on their role in the project. in some cases, like in neighborhood transportation plan, mta will sort of on the technical advisory committee and but they might not be scoped to do any of the work. it's a discussion with mta what role you would like to have on the project, what make sense for your capacity is there and what works in their work program at the time. there have been cases where we have actually contracted with mta to do the design because it's something they've wanted to do or had the staff capacity to do. it varies by project. the scope and role of mta design staff say versus consultant staff is negotiated on project by basis. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. i think this is -- i think consultants can be pros and cons and there are times when you can save money by allowing the t.a. not to have add
think you'll hear today, we have a lot of trust to build between our members and mta. i think the work that's gone on since may will help in that regard. but we really need to keep at it and our office is committed and david is committed to making sure that we do everything we can to both help find an alternative to the existing plan and to make sure that it's effectuate and had becomes a reality. i want to be clear that we -- supervisor chiu has not supported the existing base case and the so-called option 1 and is very much looking forward to consideration of these other two options in particular. as far as the pagoda goes, we think that is a creative approach that accomplishes the mta's original goal and existing goal of removing the tunnel boring machines from the ground that make sense on its face. and we want to do everything we can to support the agency in pursuit of that option. we have vetted some of those conversations and we'll continue to do everything we can from the city side to help in that regard. we do also fully understand and support the mta's inclination to limit an
included our police department, our mta, our public works department, our health department, as well as advocates in the community with walk sf. and i noe elizabeth is here today, and she'll be speaking as well. * we are one of the most walkable cities in the whole country, and we encourage that. we want that to happen. and we're here today on the power promenade because it's one of the best examples that we have done in recent years where we have combined the physical elements of widening the sidewalks, of creating park lets, of encouraging people to shop and visit and do all the fun things that we do. * powell promenade we probably at this time really challenge ourselves as a city to make walking even more safe. and even though there's more people walking, there's local visitors, there's shoppers, there's international visitors coming, and they utilize our streets and the sidewalks even more. we have to do more. we can't be satisfied with just what we've done before because we have the data that shows us more and more where the hot spots are all over the city. and we have also bee
like oh, we don't have to do that, we don't have to do that, sf mta can govern itself and we don't have to do, and it actually concerned me as a policy for the city and as a resident of the city that there are agencies that are self-governing and don't feel like they have to comply with statutes that other businesses have had to, like filleti plaza being an example. they had to do an environmental impact study on something that was a smaller area within the neighborhood. so i just wanted to make the case that i think that it is a good idea to evaluate this as a precedent for a city where there are -- there isn't a beltway. there isn't a way for people to get north, south, east, and west without using surface streets. maybe the best thing for safety is to maybe consider certain streets as through-put for cars and others are better and safer for bicyclists and pedestrians. thank you. >> president chiu: thanks. next speaker. >> thank you. my name's -- and i am the owner of fullton food shop on fulton and mason yiic and i have a gren zone that i pay for on masonic for loading, unloading, a
will be pushing cars back up north before the terminal is preserved. final plans how the mta will be using this terminal? >> i like to invite sfmta program manager to explain the plan. >> good afternoon. the mission bay loop is designed to help us deal with the very heavy service demand that's are anticipated as the eastern corridor develops including hunters point all the way up to mission bay. the central subway service plan calls for six minute service down to sunnydale and three minute service to mission bay. where we to run all the service to sunnydale at a three minute headway. not only we will be over serving the line but it will be very expensive. there will be very rich service to both destinations, based on the demand. the line will operate very similar for example, the one california, which we operate in the peak period today where we have six minute service heading out to the beach and we have three minute service in the core part of the line. it will be scheduled service. it won't be operated similar to a switch back. it will be operated on a daily basis in a way that customer
annually. most of the tax is appropriated by board and to mta. the three components that i'll mention briefly here relate to parking bond, administrative citations, and the government agencies. parking bonds are required of operators to protect the city's interests and provide security for the taxes that the operator remits to the city. the legislation expands to a level of the bonding required of parking operators from 7 to 18. and this is in response to industry requests for smaller bands of bonding. the legislation also provides for reduced bonding requirements, for operators that have a strong track record of tax compliance, reducing by as much as half. the legislation makes clarifications about surety rights and obligations. notably, that policies must cover the specific time periods. this provides additional city protection. administrative citations are the tax collector's equivalent of a parking ticket. and they are used to help enforce compliance of tax law. the legislation simplifies the administrative citation process [speaker not understood] for a hearing by mail. this is s
their own vehicles we need to give good cab service. i know that the mta has been moving forward with some very positive measures to improve service and i want to commend the mta for doing that and today we'll be having our quarterly update and miss hiashi is here from the mta so i'd like to invite her up to provide a update. >> chris hiashi, deputy director of taxis and accessible service. 2013 is going to be an exciting year for taxi service in san francisco. around the end of the year in a few weeks a report from our best practices consultant who is looking at best practices in taxi regulations throughout the country and internationally. we're very much looking forward to the results of this study because, among other things, it represents a very comprehensive data collection effort from customers and stake holders that has not taken place in san francisco in many years and this will both quantify and validate our neighborhood service issues rather than having to rely on anecdotal information. in addition to analyzing the immediate needs on whether taxi supply is recommended it will al
is that this plan was born through a terribly expensive community process, and kudos to the mta for leading a great process. so this is definitely the will of the people. people want their bike lanes on fell and oak. the second point is from may to october, a full five months, the only thing that was happening on this project was the planning department was addressing this very issue of the environmental impact report and if we're now going to go back and look over their work and double back i think maybe we should just consider firing the entire planning department, mak maybe e can solve some of our budgetary issues this evening. the third issue is -- i'm sure the members of the board are well aware that in 1973 your predecessors passed a law that made san francisco a transit first city. here we are 40 years later talking about removing a bike lane because there are too many private automobiles that will be going around looking for parking. we're not talking about doing initiatives to improve car share or the hundreds of people who will not have to use a car because of these bike lanes. we're talk
. and that plan went before the mta board. they considered the policy merits of it and decided to pass it unanimously on october 16. again, i just wanted to emphasize because i think it's so important that we were able to engage so many people throughout the community and to come up with a plan that was balanced. and we considered several options. we considered removing a lane of traffic on oak street but oak street is very important for vehicle traffic and people throughout the city, in the western neighborhoods and as well in the eastern neighborhoods who use this street to access, you know, 19th avenue to get to the golden gate bridge or octavia to the 101 that it was important we not increase congestion. i know appellants have stated this project will somehow increase congestion in the neighborhood but our detailed thorough analyze plainly states it won't. we are minimally affecting the road capacity by just removing a travel lane for two hours of the day. currently there's a fourth lane on two blocks of oak street for two hours of the day. and that is what we're planning on replac
. and this is a occasion for mta and this is the first rubber tire fa tillty that mta has built in the last 6 years and it is of course, a state of the art facility. in the discussions with the authority, they agreed that was a good idea that they would be able to service all kinds of vehicles and this is significant because it provides an opportunity to service the fleet. which are 60 footers. s and they face one,. the fuel wash facility on the site and the maintenance building itself will be built next year. the next project is the placement of the rail facility, this has been in the works for a lot of years, unfortunately, that facility, was over crowded, and therefore it was difficult to replace that track with the over capacity. and now that it has taken some of the load off they have been able to make room so to speak to be able to replace the track. now, the construct of this also includes, the construction of the east side collection project. funded for the allocation and also coordination of the other district improvements for the balboa station area. and a key aspect of this project which
and essentially getting in for the federal funds and as soon as that issue is resolved, and the mta is ready with the appropriatal location requests we stand ready to provide the new match so that there be a new fleet. >> we understand that it takes a significant amount of time and the aimportant issue related to that, is facilities, we have been working on the mta for years now and ensuring that there is a good plan, it makes no sense to buy a new fleet and not be able to maintain it so there has to be an appropriate capacity to do that and the budget to do the maintenance as well and that is another issue. but from the standpoint of the transportation authority and the funding we are pleased to be a partner in that as soon as those issues are addressed. i also would like to and i'm really glad that the union brought up the issue of operator rest rooms and because even under prop k, the money that was ear marked for operator rest room thises is a serious issue in the city that the operators needs to have the ability to go to a rest room at the end of the line or somewhere, safely, and in a
's operation. the resolution before us today so provides. mta board of direction is considering a proposal to use a portion of this regional funding not for improving muni's reliability but rather to fund free muni passes for youth, free as opposed to the 70% discount muni already provides. i've been public in my skepticism of the free muni for youth program. my skepticism has been based on and my belief the program would come from muni's operating money. we're now seeing that's the case that muni is considering using some of this maintenance program rather than to invest that money in the system to purchase more vehicles, to rehabilitate vehicles and otherwise make the system more reliable. once the free muni pilot program ends there will be enormous pressure to extend the program and that pressure almost certainly will include using more funding that could be used to improve muni's reliability. reasonable minds can differ on whether you should ride muni for free. i respect the views of the supporters of this program, my free youth fares is different than the operational funding to pay fo
to that one piece that one of the mta board members motioned that that particular bulb be deleted. but, again, i'll just confirm that all the bulbs have been looked at with turning radiuses in mind to make sure that trucks, including emergency vehicle, could make those turns. >> supervisor olague: basically there are no longer two bulbouts there on that street. it's just been -- one has been eliminated. >> correct. >> supervisor olague: and then the other issue that someone mentioned was the traffic study. so i wonder if you could comment on that, that there was no traffic study but many of us were under the impression that there was a traffic study. and it seems to me -- and i was curious to know who conducted that study because there was some comment that it wasn't independent. i'm not quite sure what's meant by that but if you could elaborate a little bit that would be helpful. >> like i mentioned we've been studying this for a year now but it was nine months in the planning process and we conducted traffic counts, and it was mta staff who collected traffic count data. we had an independen
't have them -- i don't have the exact numbers but i looked recently, the mta has these annual reports, and from about 2008 to 2011, the number of street parking spaces decreased by 12 or 13%, and the number of automobiles registered in san francisco decreased by about 1%. so that's a piece of evidence that would seem to indicate that the idea that, when you remove parking from a very dense neighborhood, that there's no impact, is just against the common sense of almost everybody who lives in that neighborhood, and who's ever had to find parking. >> supervisor campos: aren't they adding parking as well in some streets? >> well the net -- the removing of 100 parking spaces on oak and fell, they are putting back a certain number -- so that includes both the bulbouts and the parking removal for the bike lanes. they're putting back a certain number, about 13 i think it is, by removing some of the bus stops on the 21 hayes. and in fact one of those bus stops that they were going to remove was actually outside what they considered the project area. but the other thing is that they're going t
:instead it relied on a confidential city attorney's memorandum, which put us at a disadvantage. the mta got to see our arguments while we didn't get to see theirs. that was partially rectified when president hwang provided the memorandum and gave us an opportunity to address it and i thank her for that, but don't think that was a proper procedure. the memorandum itself raises a question. it was co-authored by mr. brian who advises this board and julia, who advises the mta, the mta being a party to the proceeding and as a result, i don't believe that you received independent and objective advoice on this issue. i think there should have been a firewall between the advice entered to the counsel and this board and the meeting between the executive director and president of this board touching upon similar subject matter. we put in a public records request to the board and the mta requesting among other things records that of meeting or meetings and got nothing back in that record s. it plausible there was no documentation in relationship to those meetings or is that document again hiding behind the v
community to redefine the proposal as introduced. and have worked with mta and the planning staff. we have heard a few concerns we intend to address. the staff report before you also addresses these concerns and we are fully supportive of all the recommendations in the staff report, but namely the concern was that that providing voluntary car share would be a way for projects to work around parking maximums and we don't believe that's the case. although we are responding to that concern, so this legislation would require that before a project is entitled requesting volunteer car share spots they need a letter of intent from a certified organization. in addition they are restricted and can't be used for anything but car share or private vehicle ownership. if they aren't used for that they can be used for bicycling, storage but not private vehicle parking, and one of the other things that we are fully supportive of the recommendation from mta and planning staff is that this be used as an incentive for projects not to go for increased parking, so in other words this would only be conferred
're here to say a few words for the record to the board we received correspondence from sf mta for a service reduction on the day before christmas and the week after, and subsequently that week in between new year's and christmas. and we didn't know if the board or the city knew. and this is something that was attempted a couple of weeks back with the thanksgiving week, in which we disapproved because the level of ridership that happens after or before the holiday actually is increased with increased shopping and commerce in the union square area, also with people still have to go to work. we've been kind of forced into the situation where they want to meet and confer over this for us to agree to the service cut and i don't think it follows the tenants of the traffic first quality to keep the level of service per the 1996 levels. also the budget includes funding to have a regular service schedule before and after the holiday. that was passed by this board and approved and we don't know why mta feels it's their prerogative to cut that service that has already been budgeted. we a
that was supported by seven members of this board, urging the san francisco mta to begin a free muni for all youth program, pilot program here in san francisco. the matter went to the mta board the proposal so that it views of some of the people who had voted against the original proposal, and limited the scope to allow for free muni for low income youth. and some of the people that had objected to the original proposal, my understanding, had indicated that they would support something that wasn't for all youth but for low income youth. the caveat that the mta board of director provided in the resolution they passed was that it was predicated on the pilot actually receiving funding from the region. so that it wasn't just muni funding the pilot, but that in fact the region could support it. we went to the mtc and there were actually two votes taken. because it allocated money from a specific source. and then at the request of one of the individuals who actually voted against the funding of the pilot, there was a new funding source that was found by the mtc staff. that's what's before you today. the
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 453 (some duplicates have been removed)